Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 7/1/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The amendment is supported by the original disclosure.
The previous restriction and 103 rejections have been maintained and repeated, but the position has been modified due to the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 15-16, 18, and 30-31 is (are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Giroud-Abel et al. (US 4977213, listed on IDS and ISR) in view of BASF’s Elastolan catalog “Elastolan”, evidenced by Juergen (DE 102006019562), and in further view of Minkwitz et al. (WO2018050487, US 20200123335 as English equivalent).
As to claims 15-16, 18, and 30-31, Giroud-Abel (claims, abs., 1:10-20, 3:15-20, 5:1-10, 8:65-68-9:1-10, Ex.2) discloses a molding composition comprising a polyamide (30-70%) based on dimer acid/caprolactam(ε-Lactam)//hexamethylenediamine, 70-30% of elastomer, and an exemplary thermoplastic polyurethane (2e), such as BASF’s Elastolan. Elastolan is a thermoplastic polyurethane prepared from aromatic or aliphatic diisocyanate, as evidenced by BASF’s Elastolan catalog.
Giroud-Abel is silent on the claimed Shore hardness of the claimed TPU having the claimed Shore hardness.
In the same area of endeavor of producing mold, Elastolan catalog (pg2, 6-7) teaches Elastolan 1180A10 TPU (Shore hardness 80A, the same used in instant examples [0248]) renders excellent hydrolysis resistance, cold flexibility, and resistance to microorganisms. Elastolan 1180A10 is commercially available in 2007, as evidenced by DE 102006019562. Elastolan 1180A10 TPU would inherently yield the claimed Shore hardness, because in view of the substantially identical composition (in this case, the disclosed TPU), it appears that the adduct would have inherently possessed the claimed properties. See MPEP § 2112.
Giroud-Abel, Elastolan, and Juergen are silent on the claimed Tg of the claimed polyamide.
Solving the same problem of lower the modulus of a polyamide as of Giroud-Abel (2:28-30), Minkwitz (abs., claims, 2, 9-15) discloses a polyamide:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
having a Tg of 25-45 °C. The polyamide shows improved low temperature toughness, puncture resistance, and transparency. The disclosed ranges of lactam, diacid, and diamines overlapping with the claimed range. It has been found that where claimed ranges overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists - see MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, as to claims 15-16, 18, and 30-31, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the composition disclosed by Giroud-Abel and utilized Elastolan 1180A10 as the TPU in view of BASF’s Elastolan catalog, because the resultant composition would yield a mold with improved hydrolysis resistance, cold flexibility, and resistance to microorganisms. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the polyamide disclosed by Giroud-Abel with the aforementioned polyamide of Minkwitz, because the resultant composition would yield a mold with improved low temperature toughness, puncture resistance, and transparency.
All references are silent on the claimed transparency and translucency. Accordingly, the examiner recognizes that not all of the claimed effects or physical properties are positively stated by the references. However, the references teach a process using the claimed steps, claimed processing conditions, and the claimed components in the claimed amounts according to instant claims. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation that the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. transparency and translucency, would necessarily flow from a process employing the claimed steps, claimed processing conditions, and the claimed components in the claimed amounts. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also MPEP § 2112.01(I)-(II). If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) applicant must provide evidence to support the applicant’s position, and (2) it would be the examiner’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure on how to obtain the claimed effects or properties with only the claimed steps, claimed processing conditions, and the claimed components in the claimed amounts.
Response to Arguments
The argument for allowance of amended claims has been fully considered but not persuasive.
The applicant individually attacked (6:3) Giroud-Abel fails to the claimed polyamide. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP-2145. Solving the same problem of lower the modulus of a polyamide as of Giroud-Abel (2:28-30), Minkwitz (abs., claims, 2, 9-15) discloses the claimed polyamide. The polyamide shows improved low temperature toughness, puncture resistance, and transparency. The disclosed ranges of lactam, diacid, and diamines overlapping with the claimed range. Minkwitz alleviates the deficiency of Giroud-Abel.
The rest of applicant’s argument pertaining to the amendment has been rendered moot.
Therefore, the previous restriction and 103 rejections have been maintained, but the position has been modified due to the amendment. See above rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7378. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs. 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached on 571.572.1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHANE FANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights